Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-05-28
Bond-Once More.

The opinion Of Judge STAPLES, or that Of
Judge BUREs. or that OF Mr., TUCKER, b
worth more iban that OF dozen or hun.
dred such lawyers as BoND, who had no
more sense Of propriety than TO decide the
PARSONS case In favor of the bondholders.
This case went up to the Supreme Court o.
the United States, which, at it, October
term. 1884. reversed the decision OF Judge
BoND, and remandcd the cise with ins,ruc-
tons TO dismiss the bill. In the opinion Of
the court, delivered by Mr.. Justice MAT.
THEwS, BOND was reproved in the words
following:
'.This bill is without precedent, and
should kGusbeen dismissed. II is clear
case a. stated Of dGmnUm dbSque inju.
ria"
But no court sits TO determine ques-
iions OF law IN MeSi. There must he a
litigation upon actual transactions between
real parties, growing ont Of controversy
affecting legal or equitable rights as to per-
son or property
That language shows what sort OF suit
BOND entertained several years ago. Nov,
wha' is the case against the cOupon-crushery
We answer that Mr.. COOPER processes that
he has made bad bargain and asks Judge
BOND TO step in and relieve bin from the
consequences Of his i.adyised contracts.
Being an alien, be had the right to bring IN
BOND's court a suit which he would never
have brought in court OF this Common.
wealth. And Mr.. COOPER docs not hest
tate to state TO Judge BOND that he desires
him bond TO relieve him from the trouble
and expense Of carrying out his contracts.
He asks BOND to do V bat State Legislature
cannot do-namcly, impair the obligation
of a contract. lie has made a contrae.
under the operation Of which he claims
but we do not admit, let us Say-that he
is likely TO suffer loss, and he asks BOND to
enjoin the Commonwealth attorney from
enioY cling the law OF the State OF Virginia,
because il It is enforced he COOPER will
be sufferer. And Tor this reason BOND
entered the order which Mr.. COOPER hal
asked for.
How Is Mr.. WITT to know which Of the
persons whom the law requires him TO sue
bought their coupons from Mr.. COOPER?
Are MIR. CoOPhR's friends to be protected.
ard oil otter persons VINO refuse To pay
their taxes in money to have their land,
covered with hensf l. Mr.. COOPER to be
permitted 20 set at defiance the laws Of this
Commonwealth upon the specious pretex'
that they ale unconstitutional, when such
LAWYERS as those we have named above.
besides dozens OF better ones than BOND
who are members Of the General Assembly.
have given it as thor deliberate opinion
tina, the laws in question are not uncCn,tl-
tutiODal?
But is Mr.. COOPER the real pr Y in IN
terest in this sum- We have before IL,
circular, signed 10y Mr.. CoorER, dated NJ
vember 5, 1S'6, in which he says:
81 am ouLOriz,d Jy The Corporation o.
Foreign EonGhoidcrs Of LOhdoa, Eaqldad.
10 extend 10 ~ laX.pVe!S prOcurlug cOu.
pOns - on me witt which 10 Gay their take.
tie fullest legal protection free OF any eX-
pep,e on their part in the event OF then
being molested by the state officials
so tbs The Corporation OF Foreign Bond
holders, and not Mr.. COOPER, that Judge
BOND Is protecling-men who have never
asked bis interposition. and who cannotsue
by pioxv. II Mr.. WITT will probe thi,
matter to the bottom, be will probably find
that Mr. COOPER hasn't one hundred dollars
at stake. and had no possible right to bring
the suit under con ,ideratioD. The eunan.
tee given by Nr. COOPER shows clearly
that be bad no right to sue. II says;
"Whercss has purchased from
James p. Cooper s. Of NTlIoia taX.re-
oeIVable coupons; now, therefore, if the
said snail tendersaid coupons for
his Ststc t1Xcs he sid James +. Cooper
hereby covenants, aud he is Authorized by
the lnginid Committee OF the Corpora
tioU oJ foreign BoadtO'derS Of L0ad0n
so 10 coreE0lf. that II The said i
moltst,d IN anS way by tic officers OF
the state of Virginia, BE-, the said
Isnes p. Cooper, w'il. furnish the said
with all necessary counsel, and
will save bin harmless On account Of sad
tender